The Estuary of Theology 19

 Challenge of John the Evangelist (2) 

John the Evangelist, amid persecution, hid the top-secrecy of the “my church” (cf. Matthew 16:18), namely the characteristics of the Christian priesthood, in the words, “bride” and “the disciple Jesus loved.” These words were convenient to hide it because they made people associate them with women. They were not so much off the point because the main task of the priesthood was to receive the role of the spouse of the Holy Spirit so that the Holy Eucharist, which Jesus had constituted, was born. John the Evangelist noticed that Jesus had compared himself to a bridegroom and seen his disciples as his friends invited to his wedding or his mother or his siblings. Then, he, by using the word “bride” only in his Gospel, the word Jesus had never used, tried to make Christians pay attention to the priesthood, which Jesus had prepared at the risk of his life and was essential for the Holy Spirit and the “my church.”

John the Evangelist tells us that Jesus’ first disciples were disciples of John the Baptista (cf. John 1:35-37). They followed Jesus voluntarily according to the suggestion of John the Baptista. When his disciples who remained with him told him that everyone went to Jesus, he said, “No one can receive anything except what is given him from heaven. You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before him. He who has the bride is the bridegroom; the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom's voice; therefore this joy of mine is now full. He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:27-30). The “bride” that John the Baptist says here indicates those who have become Jesus’ disciples.

In the Gospel of John, the word “bride” appears once, and the word “bridegroom” four times. In the Revelation to John, in contrast, the word “bridegroom” appears once accompanied by the word “bride,” while the word “bride” four times independently. This coincident in number makes us attentive to the relationship between John’s Gospel and the Revelation. When we take the word “bridegroom” that appears once accompanied by the word “bride” in the Revelation as the image of Jesus’ Passion and death, then the word “bride” accompanied by the word “bridegroom” makes us imagine the disciples who were scattered and became martyrs. It is because the Revelation reads: “[T]he light of a lamp shall shine in thee no more; and the voice of bridegroom and bride shall be heard in thee no more; for thy merchants were the great men of the earth, and all nations were deceived by thy sorcery. And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all who have been slain on earth” (Revelation 18:23-24).

John the Evangelist heard Jesus’ words close to him who lamented over Jerusalem (cf. Matthew 23:37-39, Luke 13:34-35, 19:41-44) and foretold its destruction (cf. Matthew 24:1-8, Mark 13:1-8, Luke 21:5-24). At that moment, the Evangelist must have had a premonition that Jesus might have a plan of the new city which would replace Jerusalem for Christians. If Jerusalem is to be destroyed, where should Christians secure their stronghold? After the destruction of Jerusalem, his premonition changed to a conviction, and he detailed in his Gospel the dialogue between Jesus and Pilate (cf. John 18:33-38, 19:8-11).

Pilate was very much concerned with whether Jesus was the king of the Jews. Therefore, when he asked Jesus, “Are you the King of the Jews?” he said, “You have said so” (Matthew 27:11, Mark 15:2, Luke 23:3). The Gospel of Matthew writes, “[W]hile he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word to him, ‘Have nothing to do with that righteous man, for I have suffered much over him today in a dream’” (Matthew 27:19). Pilate must have felt uneasy with increasing awe-like feeling to Jesus with this anxious information.

Pilate, when he saw Jesus, might have sensed, in the eyes of this figure, his aim, namely his royal road, which would someday necessarily spread. He, who stuck to whether Jesus was the king of the Jews, seems to have tried to ease and shake off his uneasiness by making “this man” end his life as the king of the Jews. In the scene of “an inscription” (John 19:19-22), he himself said, “What I have written I have written.” Probably he wanted to completely put an end to the connection between him and “this man” and to be relieved by putting the inscription, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews,” publicly on the cross. The Gospel of Mark writes, “Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead” (Mark 15:44). Jesus, on the day of his end, has indeed chosen Rome for the new Jerusalem.

The Revelation to John is the book written through the eyes of a prophet, and the author described the events in the new city that was to become the possession of Christians later as if the new Jerusalem appeared in front of Christians. John wrote, “And he said to me, ‘These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place’” (Revelation 22:6), and wrote, “I John am he who heard and saw these things” (Revelation 22:8). He, who had experienced Pentecost and had seen that the Holy Spirit had made all that Jesus had prepared alive again, was convinced that Jesus had prepared a city for Christians.

“And he who sat upon the throne said, ‘Behold, I make all things new.’ Also he said, ‘Write this, for these words are trustworthy and true.’ And he said to me, ‘It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the fountain of the water of life without payment. He who conquers shall have this heritage, and I will be his God and he shall be my son’” (Revelation 21:5-7).

God said to David about his son, Solomon: “I will be his father, and he shall be my son” (2 Samuel 7:14, cf. 1 Chronicle 22:10, 28:6). However, these words did not realize because of Solomon’s disobedience. Solomon was enjoying the world of “Song of Songs,” which described the relationship between the eternal groom and the bride. “For when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods” (1 Kings 11:4). He sought not the reality of God, who wished to give him the relationship, “I will be his father, and he shall be my son,” but his fictional world (cf. 1 Kings 11:1-10). Jesus made people know the name of the Father in heaven and gave the relationship between the Father and the Son to the relationship between God and humanity.

The Revelation reads, “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Revelation 21:14), so “the wall” here signifies the priests who are surrounding the altar. In the same way, “the city” in the following description is the altar: “And he who talked to me had a measuring rod of gold to measure the city and its gates and walls. The city lies foursquare, its length the same as its breadth; and he measured the city with his rod, twelve thousand stadia; its length and breadth and height are equal” (Revelation 21:15-16). The description, “by a man's measure, that is, an angel's” (Revelation 21:17), also suggests that both the wall and the city indicate concrete objects. In the Mass, the priests and the altar appear in front of people as if they came down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. The “gates” of the city signify the Holy Eucharist compared to pearls which are round and white (cf. Revelation 21:21). As it is written: “It had a great, high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel were inscribed” (Revelation 21:12), the angels at the gates are saving the free minds separating evil spirits from them by the Holy Eucharist (cf. The Estuary of Theology issue 14). John was watching the future scene where the Eucharist is exposed on the altar.

“The Spirit and the Bride say, ‘Come.’ And let him who hears say, ‘Come.’” (Revelation 22:17). The “Spirit,” the “bride” and “he who hears” signifies the Holy Spirit, priests and the laity, respectively. The Holy Eucharist has already come. The Eucharist is the gate which indicates the coming of the kingdom of God and the close of the age (cf. The Estuary of Theology issue 14). John the Evangelist hid the priesthood, which becomes the spouse of the Holy Spirit for the Eucharist to be born, in the word “bride.”

The Synoptic Gospels begin the scene of the last supper of Jesus with the scene of the preparation for the Passover meal, writing, “Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread” or “Then came the day of Unleavened Bread” (cf. Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, Luke 22.7). In contrast, John’s Gospel begins it with the word, “Now before the feast of the Passover” (John 13:1). The reason why he wrote, “Now before,” was to make Christians pay attention to this word and know that before Jesus’ Institution of the Eucharist the scene of washing feet of his disciples was. As God instructed the people who had escaped from Egypt to wash the priests whom he had chosen, the Evangelist wrote that Jesus, before the Institution, washed the feet of the disciples whom he had chosen and consecrated them as new priests. For this reason, in the dialogue between Jesus and Peter in this scene, the words which coincide with the words God instructed Moses appear (cf. Exodus 30:17-21, 40:30-31 / John 13:6-10).

Jesus instructed his disciples to hand down the priesthood he consecrated by his hands, saying, “For I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them” (John 13:15-17). The “blessing” here is given when the Apostles practise Jesus’ instruction after his example and hand down the consecration of the priesthood given by God’s hands to the next generation as Jesus said: “If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet” (John 13:14). John the Evangelist, who detailed the scene of Jesus’ consecration of the priesthood, did not write the scene of the Institution of the Eucharist in his book. He was afraid of the new priesthood being targeted by the persecutors who noticed the direct connection between these two significant incidents.

The image of “the disciple whom Jesus loved” who was lying close to the breast of Jesus at his last supper overlaps with the image of a priest who was consecrated by God to become the spouse of the Holy Spirit (cf. John 13:23-26). The Evangelist repeated this expression in the dialogue between risen Jesus and Peter and stressed the importance of it: “Peter turned and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved, who had lain close to his breast at the supper and had said, ‘Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?’” (John 21:20).

The Evangelist, also in the following scene, repeated Jesus’ word and stressed it. “When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, ‘Lord, what about this man?’ Jesus said to him, ‘If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!’ The saying spread abroad among the brethren that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, ‘If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?” (John 21:21-23).

In this dialogue, a plan of God was hidden, which had nothing to do with Peter, who had been already recognized as the head of the Apostles chosen by the heavenly Father and Jesus himself (cf. Matthew 16:17-18). Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!” because he had his family. Then, the Evangelist wrote, “This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true” (John 21:24). The reason why the Evangelist gave so much importance to this dialogue is that the word, “If it is my will that he remain until I come,” was connected to the vocation of “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” Jesus suggested that the priesthood which takes the “divine celibacy” (cf. The Estuary of Theology issue 9) shown in the word “the disciple whom Jesus loved” would last until the Second Coming.

According to the description of Genesis, the priesthood was planned on men. The expression “the disciple whom Jesus loved” means that not only the priesthood is for men but also it is to be entrusted to men who have the “divine celibacy.” This fact is suitable for priests, who are directly connected with the Holy Spirit, who has the “divine celibacy.” The “divine celibacy” is one of the characteristics of the mind of God, which is God’s life, who neither marries nor is given in marriage, and is based on the fact that though the three personas of the triune Godhead, as ones each of whom is the “I AM,” are united into one through the knowledge of God, each of their mind remains independent and is not in a relationship of dependence in which they hold each other’s minds (cf. The Estuary of Theology issue 9).

It is not only to fulfil the word of God, “Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:22), like other living things, that God made humans male and female from the beginning. The reproductive ability given to living things with this word is not the purpose but for supporting the completion of the Creation of humanity. Nevertheless, people, who were created in God’s image and after his likeness, by knowledge, understand that the life dwelling in a perishable body is a priceless thing that supports the whole plan of the Creation. People can know that reproductive ability is for becoming the collaborator for the plan of God. This fact will become understandable by scrutinizing Genesis Chapter three.

Genesis Chapter three describes the circumstances of the humans eating the fruits of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil God had forbidden to eat (Genesis 3:1-13) and God’s plan including the problem that arose as the result and God’s handling of it (cf. The Estuary of Theology issue 14) (Genesis 3:14-19), and lastly the act of the humans which directly caused their deportation from the garden of Eden (Genesis 3:20) (cf. The Estuary of Theology issue 12). The phrase that God told the woman, “[Y]our desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Genesis 3:16), and the phrase that God told the man, “In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground” (Genesis 3:19) (cf. The Estuary of Theology issue 6), are in this chapter. These two were God’s plan which he had from the beginning. The phrase God told the woman tells that men and women, even though they share the memory of their experience through genes, are created towards totally different vocations according to the difference in reproductive ability.

The human eggs entrusted to women are made when the woman was a foetus in the womb of her mother and are never produced again after her birth. Each egg matures in a cycle around from 28 days to one month and comes out to the fallopian tube seeking a sperm. Women become on heat in this period strongly influenced by the egg. Women are anatomically not able to control the ovulation and becoming on heat because the ovulation occurs independently from the will of the women. The egg which did not meet a sperm and did not become a fertilized egg exits her body together with a part of her womb falling out of the womb with bleeding. God created women as helpers of the Word, who completes the work of the Creation of humanity, from the beginning. Women, who always keep the possibility of conceiving a free mind substituting for God’s hands kneading clay, are directed to not having the “divine celibacy” by nature. This is the vocation of women. Sarah and Elizabeth got pregnant though they were in old age and after menopause. There is nothing impossible for God.

However, even at the time of Jesus, there were already women who hoped to live serving the “my church” of Jesus as he had lived with his parents in obedience to them (cf. Luke 2:51-52), imitating him, who had sustained the “divine celibacy” without holding other minds, even though they still had the possibility of getting pregnant. Also, there must have been men who shared the same hope as the women had. They are those who take the “name of Jesus” and live the role of Jesus (cf. The Estuary of Theology issue 8). Therefore, those who take the “name of Jesus” need to have the “divine celibacy.”

On the other hand, sperms, which begin to be produced in men’s body as he grows, are absorbed into his body and replaced by the newly made sperms when they become old. The constant amount of sperms is always in men’s body. Thanks to this system, a man usually does not need to make his sperms exit his body. God gave men a structure of the body that enables them to control getting heat by their will so that they can rule over themselves and women getting heat as well. God planned to create men as those who can directly receive the work of the Holy Spirit with the “divine celibacy” so that he could give them the priesthood as a spouse of the Holy Spirit. This plan does not contradict God’s word, “Be fruitful and multiply,” the word of giving the reproductive function to all living things. This is because God prescribed the upper limit by saying “fill the earth” as he said, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Genesis 1:28). It is men who manage it. This is the will of the Father and the true meaning of his word, “[Y]our desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” For this reason, God, when he took one of the ribs of the man and made it to the woman, “closed up its place with flesh” (cf. Genesis 2:21).

In the course of time, God instructed Abraham, “This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised” (Genesis 17:10), and consecrated “the flesh with which God closed up.” By this instruction, God publicized that the men of the clan of Abraham were to receive the priesthood in the future and that men would receive the new priesthood far in the future.

The priesthood was the vocation that men are to take from the beginning of the Creation. Jesus, who came to the earth assuming the whole plan of God, asked the men celibacy based on their bodily function. However, at the time no one had knowledge of this kind, his disciples reacted against his word and said, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry” (Matthew 19:10). Then Jesus said, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it” (Matthew 19:11-12). He advised them to live voluntarily towards the “divine celibacy” even if they remained in their current condition. It is because in the future they were to become priests and to receive the work of the Holy Spirit, who had the “divine celibacy,” so that the Holy Eucharist might be born.

In the course of time, the priesthood develops towards the “divine celibacy” for its necessity. Making oneself a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, which Jesus mentioned, demands not only to be legally single but also the “divine celibacy” towards the Holy Spirit. If men, well knowing the true meaning of the word, “[Y]our desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Genesis 3:16), are educated the importance of this word and enough trained, they will surely become the master of the responsibility of their own living sperms, which become the origin of human life. Therefore, Jesus said, “A disciple is not above his teacher, but every one when he is fully taught will be like his teacher” (Luke 6:40).

After a while, Peter said to Jesus, “Lo, we have left everything and followed you. What then shall we have?” (Matthew 19:27). Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life” (Matthew 19:28-29).

Following this word, Jesus added, “But many that are first will be last, and the last first” (Matthew 19:30). Just after this, the parable of the laborers for the vineyard is put (cf. Matthew 20:1-16). This parable also ends with the phrase, “So the last will be first, and the first last.” The true meaning of the phrase can be understood by reading the incident in which the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Jesus with her sons and asked something (cf. Matthew 20:20-23) after Jesus had foretold his Passion for the last time (cf. Matthew 20:17-19). They must have been still single living with their parents because it was their mother who came up to Jesus. The fact that they were single as Jesus was the very reason why they wanted to sit at his right hand and left hand as those who were blessed in his kingdom. As a result, Jesus did not deny their request. Then, the Gospel reads, “And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers” (Matthew 20:24).

Jesus called all of them to him and admonished them saying, “[W]hoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave” (cf. Matthew 2:25-28). However, the reason why the ten were indignant must have been that they were family men. It cannot be the same hardship for a family man to follow Jesus for his name’s sake leaving his houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands and to make himself a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, as it is for one who has been single from the beginning to do so. If the other ten were family men, they would indeed have the same feelings as the vineyard labourer who said, “These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat” (Matthew 20:12). Nevertheless, Jesus still must have answered, “Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you, and go; I choose to give to this last as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?” (Matthew 20:13-15). For this reason, he added, “So the last will be first, and the first last.”

Christ came to the earth bearing the will of the Father. On the contrary, a priest holds the will of the Father expressed as the Word when he receives the work of the Holy Spirit directly so that the Holy Eucharist is born. He gets into a similar condition to that of Mary being pregnant with Jesus. When he prays for the bread and wine to become the body and blood of Christ at the altar and raises the body of Christ and the cup of his blood, he becomes the cross itself which supports the Holy Eucharist. The Holy Eucharist, being supported by priest’s hands, shows the presence of Christ who draws all men to him on the cross (cf. John 12:32). The true intention of Jesus’ instruction, “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19), is fulfilled here. For this reason, he gave his mother to the “disciple whom Jesus loved” on the cross (cf. John 19:27). The mother-son bond put between the mother of Jesus and the disciple by the word of Jesus on the cross, encourages the priest who raises the Holy Eucharist. At the same time, it makes the priest who has become the cross of Jesus and got nailed on the Holy Eucharist the “disciple whom Jesus loved” standing with the mother of Jesus under the cross.

To be continued.

Oct. 2020 in Hiroshima

Maria K